Superman Returns movie discussion *Spoilers*
- Thread starter thee great one
- Start date
-
- Tags
- superman
DARKKNIGHT
Well-Known Member
It couldn't be worse than a creeper Superman that spies on his Lois, has a b****** kid with her right before running off to Krypton, and then spends the rest of the movie doing...well not a whole lot besides being beaten and then rescued by Richard White. Superman shouldn't be the one being rescued in his own movie.
Gothamite
Well-Known Member
That's not what you said, though. You said you didn't like Brandon Routh as Superman. You didn't say that you didn't like how Superman was written in the movie.
I thought Brandon Routh was wonderful in the part and while everyone harks on about how much his performance brings back memories of Reeve; I think in many ways he made the role his own and he brought a unique sense of subtlety to it as well as enhancing Reeve's warmth to an even greater degree. Unfortunately, what he was given to do in the movie wasn't good enough and he is often (as seen above) given an unfair critique because of this.
I couldn't stand any of the DCAU incarnations of Superman. They were all too dry and pedestrian and while Superman was quite a tough and cool superhero, he really wasn't someone I'd stand in the street and cheer for. He really didn't inspire me at all, the way the other Supermen (mainly Reeve, Dean Cain, George Reeves, Bud Collyer and Brandouth) did.
Last edited:
DARKKNIGHT
Well-Known Member
Whether you chalk it up to the directing, writing, or Routh's acting, the Superman presented in Superman Returns was not to my liking. All in all I just kinda found Routh to be bland. As I have said, it could be because I found the movie bland as a whole. I really can't see a reason to believe he would be any better with a different script. I mean everyone will agree that George Clooney was a bad Batman, but whether he would have been great under different circumstances is anyone's guess. I'm for them recasting the whole damn thing.
Last edited:
Gothamite
Well-Known Member
Comparing George Clooney as Batman in Batman & Robin to Brandon Routh as Superman in Superman Returns is silly. It's like comparing Dr. Pepper (an interestingly sweet soft-drink that it is not to everyone's liking) to urine (people-juice).
DARKKNIGHT
Well-Known Member
I'll give you that. While Superman Returns was dissppointing in my humble opinion, Batman & Robin was ****. However, there is no way that Returns is the Dr. Pepper of comic book movies. Fresca maybe, but definitely not Dr. Pepper.
Langsta
Well-Known Member
Routh....wasn't a good actor in Superman Returns. I realize that it was his first major film, but I would have preferred
Jim Caviezel
So yeah. Caviezel said he'd dedicate the part to Christopher Reeve, but Singer didn't want him because he was too well-known as Jesus.
So what, Superman is Jesus. He's the ultimate do-gooder. He was sent from the skies as our savior. He can shoot laser beams from his freaking eyes.
Last edited:
I just watched this for the first time. And while parts of it were pretty good, for the most part it was remarkably dull and, at times, remarkably stupid.
Superman. In the emergency room. SERIOUSLY.
Also, when Kitty dropped the crystals out of the helicopter, shouldn't they have caused the land mass to grow even larger?
I also hate the idea of either Superman OR Lois Lane having a kid. I don't even really see the point of it, other than to give Lois a way to get away from the guy that was going to kill her on the boat.
I don't really like Superman all that much, but the movies were always even worse than the comics. I just hated the tone throughout, and this was just more of the same.
I'm glad they're rebooting.
D+
Superman. In the emergency room. SERIOUSLY.
Also, when Kitty dropped the crystals out of the helicopter, shouldn't they have caused the land mass to grow even larger?
I also hate the idea of either Superman OR Lois Lane having a kid. I don't even really see the point of it, other than to give Lois a way to get away from the guy that was going to kill her on the boat.
I don't really like Superman all that much, but the movies were always even worse than the comics. I just hated the tone throughout, and this was just more of the same.
I'm glad they're rebooting.
D+
Planet-man
Well-Known Member
They landed on a lower-down part of the landmass, not in the water.
Having said that, I've still written a lengthy list of the 24 most glaringly stupid moments in the film as an article on Facebook, to much acclaim.8)
He said the crystals take on the properties of whatever they come in contact with. If they landed *anywhere* on the land mass, it should have caused the landmass to grow MUCH larger. It didn't appear to do anything.
Also, Superman tearing a chuck of earth - covered throughout with kryptonite, nonetheless - out of the ocean and flying into space was completely retarded. He because severely weakened just standing on the landmass talking to Luthor - how the **** is he going to tear a chunk of it out of the bottom of the ocean and fly it into space?!
I can't believe people liked this movie.
Planet-man
Well-Known Member
But they still need water to grow, as he said earlier in the film.
Otherwise they'd grow into the piece of velvet he wrapped them in or his hand or the air.
Yeah, no argument here. I actually left the Superman Homepage due in some part to constantly having to convince actual people that this was stupid and non-sensical.
In fact, bam.
It's like Moonmaster's album reviews but about this movie!
Last edited:
Random
Didn't **** any of those *****es
This is the one thing I hate having to explain over and over, was the entire island bright green? No it was a mixture of water ground and kryptonite, so the effects were diluted at best and really only created a large effect when he was standing in the middle of it, he probably was more weakened from the piece Luthor was holding. If it was just a huge chunk of kryptonite he would of passed out in metropolis. Plus when he went to lift it up he flew deep under ground to give himself some protection from it.
Another thing that really pisses me off is when people use the fact that he doesn't punch anyone to say its a bad movie. That is a very unintelligent answer, sure I would have liked more action but that alone doesn't make it a bad movie. I mean I don't recall him punching anyone in the first two Reeves film save for that one guy at the end of 2.
Now I don't want to argue whether the movie was good or not. I thought it was pretty good, had its ups and downs but I thought in the end there was more good things about it. I completely understand why someone would not like it. These are just two points that really annoys me whenever I read them.
:lol:
You think that *helps* explain the movie?
No, the entire island wasn't made of kryptonite. The point is that it had a LOT of kryptonite, and even a small amount makes him weak. And if just STANDING on a rock with a LOT of kryptonite -without physically exerting himself - is enough to weaken him so much that he can barely stand up and gets the **** kicked out of him by a few nobodies, HOW can he get enough strength to tear the rock out of the bottom of the ocean and then FLY IT INTO SPACE?
Please. It's so retarded that I can't believe you would try and explain it.
Joe Kalicki
Well-Known Member
He gets just enough strength from remembering his father's inspirational words, and also from the sun (he flew up to it), to move the island off of Earth, even though he knew it would probably kill him to do so.
ProjectX2
Don't expect me to take you with me when I go to s
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2004
- Messages
- 25,007
I think it works well when you think of Singer's intention - a tribute to the Donner films. It's why it feels almost exactly like a remake of them and it's got the same tone and style. In this way, it works - but as a way to bring Superman back into cinemas and modern audiences, it fails.
Planet-man
Well-Known Member
Random said:
The funny thing is that the only place I've actually heard "the fact that he doesn't punch anyone was why it sucked" from are Bryan Singer and rampant fans of the movie trying to EXPLAIN why it did poorly at the box office.
The real reason most people think it sucked is some combination of: because it was an awkward movie with a terrible lead actress, unconvincing action sequences, a plot that made no sense, a ridiculous climax, stupid subplots, poor pacing..... it was a sucky movie!
:arrgh:....
...thank you.
So floating in front of the Sun for a few seconds gives Superman the ability to use his super-powers beyond anything he's done before even while faced with hundreds of tons of Kryptonite a few feet away from his face and with an inch of it embedded in his kidney-area.
Nope. Still retarded.
And even if it somehow made sense, look at it from a story-telling perspective. The villain sets up a fairly clever plot designed so that the hero absolutely can't use his usual talents against it. The audience anticipates the hero solving the problem through some clever and fun-to-watch means, giving purpose to the story.
The hero then solves the impossible-to-solve-normally problem by..... solving it normally, just TRYING HARDER. And in this case, this is depicted by him SCRUNCHING UP HIS FACE while he works.
That's our reward. That's the climax we get to see.
How did this movie get made?
Random
Didn't **** any of those *****es
It does help and as I recall he was able to stand and function quite well while standing, and I'm betting most of that was from Lex's Kryptonite shank, plus the other reason of him having a rocky barrier for most of the lift to shield him. And as Joe pointed out he recharged with the sun a bit before doing it, that and the later consistent boost with the sun help negate some of the negative effects of the kryptonite just enough for him to get the rock out into orbit before passing out. They may be subtle but there are more factors at play here
Planet-man
Well-Known Member
Ugh.... it doesn't have the same tone and style at ALL. Donner's entire philosophy was "versimilitude", making things seem as real as possible. That's why the movie incorporates every day-to-day aspect of 1978 New York(or any big city) it can. This is a hero from cartoons and myths in OUR REAL WORLD.
Returns was the exact opposite of that, self-proclaimedly spending millions to create a modernized version of the 1940s from buildings to cars to clothing.
The reason it feels like a remake is because they quoted dozens of lines, forced the villain to have similar goals, etc.
Planet-man
Well-Known Member
The one that was still partially embedded in his muscles while he lifted the island?
Is that the shank you're talking about Random?
